4Edition. Do you like it?

[HuManBing]

It's not the system as the setting

Very true. It doesn't matter what system you're running, if you love Ravenloft and if you're looking for good ideas (or especially if you've got 'em) then you have a place at FoS.

[Dion of the Fraternity]

It's not that we hate it here.

The poll result above begs to disagree, though.

I am currently running a long-haul Ravenloft campaign in 4e. The basic premise is that a fallen Dark Power (banished for whatever reason by the other Dark Powers) plans to reclaim its high position by destroying the planar fabric that holds the planes together. Of course the players will never kill this power (they're currently at 8th level, going perhaps until 12th), but their main goal is to banish it from the Shadowfell for good. (Think Buffy season 5, Buffy season 7 and Angel season 4 combined, and you'll probably get a rough idea of what I'm getting at.)

Four of my players right now are new to D&D, and 4E is their first foray. Two of them have played 3.5E under various DMs in different campaigns, including White Wolf's Ravenloft. They know very well the restrictions of Ravenloft.

My players (all currently at 8th level; all characters from the Northern Core):

A human artificer
A dragonborn barbarian
An eladrin avenger
A human cleric of Ezra
A human warlord
A warforged fighter

So far, me and my players are absolutely enjoying this campaign, even if it is a bit dark. Being that we're all Asians, and that most of the players are overly exposed to the mass of MMORPGs currently flooding the Asian market, the players are finding it frustrating that I'm restricting them a bit when it comes to treasure and combat, and me applying Fear/Madness/Soultaint (house rules I made up), we nevertheless ABSOLUTELY LOVE 4E.

As for the whole "oh-each-class/race-will-eventually-end-up-the-same" thing, I don't really see it. As a house rule, for example, the eladrin are morose and/or outright mad due to Ravenloft's apparent distance from the Feywild. The eladrin avenger now has visions of his murdered wife, and the player (a 4E newbie) even creates his own soliloquys whenever the vision appears!

We have many of the rulebooks (PHB 1 and 2, MM 1 and 2, Eberron CG and PG, FRealms CG and FG, DMG, Arcane, Divine, Martial Power), thanks to one player who has the means to buy the stuff. Maybe we're just lucky with the books, but that's besides the point. Even perhaps without the accessories, we have created incredibly diverse characters despite Ravenloft's roleplaying restrictions.

In contrast to the vast majority here who have expressed reticence about 4E, let me say that I LOVE 4E. BEING AN MMORPG PLAYER MYSELF, D&D 4E DOES NOT FEEL LIKE AN MMORPG; IN FACT D&D 4E IS BETTER THAN ANY MMORPG OUT THERE. I am obviously passionate about D&D 4E, and that's why I'm pushing through with the Player's Guide in 4E (as well as me now in the process of creating something similar to Jester's pamphlet).

[alhoon]

Ahem... that many of us don't like 4th edition or prefer 3rd, doesn't mean we hate it Dion.

Also, remember: Few here said that 4th edition feels like a MMORPG. Those of us that prefer 3rd just said it doesn't feel like D&D.

Personaly I find it better suited for wargaming.

[Kaitou Kage]

Personaly I find it better suited for wargaming.

You'll get what you want out of any game system. 4e can be a perfectly fine roleplaying system if it's allowed to be. A lot of people look at all the combat mechanics and go "wow, this game is really combat oriented" while conveniently forgetting that some 90% of class mechanics and core rules in 3.xe were also devoted to combat. Or that 3.x really focused on a combat grid for fights.

I've been running a roleplay-heavy Planescape game using 4e mechanics (though not cosmology) almost since 4e came out. I've never, ever come across a roleplaying situation where I had to stop and go, "Hmm, 4e doesn't accommodate my roleplaying idea here, so what do I do?" Quite the opposite. 4e works just as well as 3.xe for roleplaying.

But like I said, you'll get what you want out of it, and IMHO too many people refuse to see past the dice rolling mechanics in 4e. So they enhanced combat mechanics to be more tactical. Big deal. It's still D&D and it still plays wonderfully.

[Jester of the FoS]

Personaly I find it better suited for wargaming.

You'll get what you want out of any game system. 4e can be a perfectly fine roleplaying system if it's allowed to be. A lot of people look at all the combat mechanics and go "wow, this game is really combat oriented" while conveniently forgetting that some 90% of class mechanics and core rules in 3.xe were also devoted to combat. Or that 3.x really focused on a combat grid for fights.

The question is not "can you roleplay in 4e?" as you can roleplay in ANY system. I've roleplayed through a game of Diablo. My gamer buddies and I roleplayed overly-dramatically through The Game of Life. I'm pretty sure you could RP in chess if you wanted to.

So the question is "does the game encourage roleplaying?" For that I would say "no" as you can play every aspect of 4e as a tabletop wargame.
There's little things, like how the world "roleplay" is not used in PHB2. Character and that kind of story are just not stressed.
But I should note there's 6.5 pages on "roleplaying" at the very front of the PHB1 but 1/2 of that discusses alignment and religion. But compare that to the combat section...

[Kaitou Kage]

So the question is "does the game encourage roleplaying?" For that I would say "no" as you can play every aspect of 4e as a tabletop wargame.

I strongly disagree with you here. I don't think the game books need to explicitly say "roleplaying" inside them. It's pitched as a roleplaying game. Shouldn't that be enough? You said yourself you can roleplay in any system.

Besides, there's more than enough fluff to make at least an adequate role-playing situation without even trying.

[NeoTiamat]

I would have to disagree heavily as well. The way I see it, WotC's job is to provide the mechanical underpinnings of the campaign. Not tell me how to roleplay. I don't really see how they can provide anything but the most rudimentary advice, since the writers won't know what kind of campaign I'm running, what my players are like, what I'm like, etc.

All things considered, I'd rather they spend pages making sure the combat works well (which is their job) and not proclaiming "we love roleplaying!".

Also, from at least one perspective, it would seem that 4E would be better for roleplaying, since it's a lot easier to run from a mechanical perspective. Which means that instead of fiddling around with your archvillain's spell lists for hours on end, you can spend time doing other things, including planning out the roleplaying portions of your campaign.

[Jester of the FoS]

So the question is "does the game encourage roleplaying?" For that I would say "no" as you can play every aspect of 4e as a tabletop wargame.

I strongly disagree with you here. I don't think the game books need to explicitly say "roleplaying" inside them. It's pitched as a roleplaying game. Shouldn't that be enough? You said yourself you can roleplay in any system.

Besides, there's more than enough fluff to make at least an adequate role-playing situation without even trying.

Depends on the book. Most of the splatbooks are intensely fluff-lite and PHB2 is fairly skimpy on it as well.
But comparing it to other systems (Storyteller, GURPS, Champions) and 4e D&D just doesn't have spend as much time emphasizing that element. Even in the later books the fluff seems to be literally filler, small sidebars to fill the blank space at the end of columns and chapters.
Re-read the section starting at page 18 and think about how a new person would read it. And compare it to like chapters in other games. Also look for lengthy role-playing opportunities built into published modules or NPC characteristics of pre-published NPCs and characters.

[Tattoodle]

To be perfectly honest, I really hate that WotC slapped a new D&D logo on the new edition.

It just isn't D&D anymore. It’s completely unrecognizable from what has gone before. I can appreciate it for what it is (a unique RPG), but to call it D&D is blasphemy. I like it as an RPG, but I hate that it’s called D&D.

I’m not letting this new edition invalidate my massive collection of 3E and D20 gaming collection. If I want to play D&D, I’ll play 3E or Pathfinder.

I am buying the new books because they are inspiring and some of the stuff can be reverse engineered for 3E. I really like the powers system and think that it is terrific for running and gaming in certain types of games (Charmed comes to mind). I am hoping that D20 Modern gets revamped using the system.

[ewancummins]

Hell, I still prefer Moldvay/Cook or Mentzer.

[Kaitou Kage]

All I'm going to say at this point is if you don't like 4e, you don't like it. And that's fine.

However, the system doesn't deserve even HALF the crap it gets from people. Nowhere close. It's a very solid, well-designed system that's no worse than 3.x ever was.

Quite frankly, after reading over this whole thread now, I wonder why there's still a debate at all. Some people like it, some people don't. Okay, get over it. Why is there still a need to take shots at the new thing?

[Tattoodle]

All I'm going to say at this point is if you don't like 4e, you don't like it. And that's fine.

I didn't say I didn't like it, all I said was that I hate thate that it's called D&D.

[Igor the Henchman]

All I'm going to say at this point is if you don't like 4e, you don't like it. And that's fine.

I didn't say I didn't like it, all I said was that I hate thate that it's called D&D.

*resists urge to quote Romeo and Juliet*

>Tattoodle
The new edition doesn't "invalidate" anything. 3E is still very much alive. 3rd party publishers still dish out new material for it. WotC even produced the D&D Rules Compendium as a parting gift for people who would choose not to convert.

>Jester
I've tried out several RPG systems that aim to "encourage" roleplaying, either with some sort of stick-and-carrot mechanic or with long pages of insistent gospel. In my experience, this has no positive effect on the game whatsoever. It puts the game participants under imaginary pressure to play the game "right", which makes for more tedious sessions overall. The best "deep immersion" games leave the issue in the hands of the players, while keeping the roleplaying mechanics blissfully simple. WoD does that. D&D 4E does the same. The more successful RPG companies understand that its not part of the game designer's job to try and "educate" their audience.

[Zettaijin]

Quite frankly, after reading over this whole thread now, I wonder why there's still a debate at all. Some people like it, some people don't. Okay, get over it. Why is there still a need to take shots at the new thing?

You do understand that there are whole groups of people who spend much of their online time involved in highly volatile debates on the merits of 1st ED and how 2nd ED killed AD&D.

Could you imagine what would have happened had the internet as we know it today existed back when 2nd ED took over?

I mean, 1st ED has been dead for years now, and yet, 3 editions later, some disgruntled people are still complaining about its cancellation!

And you know what their arguments are like?

"2nd ED doesn't promote role playing like in the good old days!"
"This is just TSR trying to make money off of the fans' backs!"
"They're selling their souls to the Gods of greedy capitalism!"
"2nd ED isn't balanced!"
"2nd ED isn't as much fun!"
"2nd ED is broken!"
"2nd ED is for kids!"

Sound familiar?

[Kaitou Kage]

You do understand that there are whole groups of people who spend much of their online time involved in highly volatile debates on the merits of 1st ED and how 2nd ED killed AD&D.

Could you imagine what would have happened had the internet as we know it today existed back when 2nd ED took over?

I mean, 1st ED has been dead for years now, and yet, 3 editions later, some disgruntled people are still complaining about its cancellation!

And you know what their arguments are like?

"2nd ED doesn't promote role playing like in the good old days!"
"This is just TSR trying to make money off of the fans' backs!"
"They're selling their souls to the Gods of greedy capitalism!"
"2nd ED isn't balanced!"
"2nd ED isn't as much fun!"
"2nd ED is broken!"
"2nd ED is for kids!"

Sound familiar?

Oh, certainly. And I know plenty of people that still refuse to play 3.x because they feel like it "dumbed down" the game.

I suppose my point is that everytime a major change comes along, like a new D&D edition, there are going to be people that don't like it. Most of the people that have already decided they don't like 4e and there just won't be any changing their mind. Every time a 4e supporter brings up a point, a 4e opponent will launch a counterpoint about why the supporter is wrong, and it just continues in a vicious circle.

4e is as much D&D as anything else published by Wizards or TSR. It's not the system that makes it D&D, it's the brand. And like I said before, if you (this is a generic you, not a directed you) don't like it, that's fine. Over a year after 4e came out, though I think the argument over which is better has really just devolved into petty squabbling. For the most part, people have made up their minds on where they stand. There's little Wizards or anyone on either side of the fence can do now to make most people change their positions.

Personally, I enjoy 4e. I find the system is more streamlined, it's easier to understand, and I think overall it has far fewer unnecessary and confusing rules than 3.x. This is speaking as someone who has played/DMed extensively since 3.0 came out and has DMed 4e since it came out. Incidentally, I feel the same way about 3.x over 2e. I think 3.x is much easier, much more streamlined, and much better designed than 2e ever was. Each system certainly has its bugs, its drawbacks, its hangups. But overall I feel the newer systems have been marked improvements over the previous ones.

That's my stance. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. However, I do think a majority of anti-4e people aren't giving the system a fair chance. A lot of this is Wizards' poor marketing tactics, which led to some pretty gross misconceptions. Hell, I was really skeptical about the whole "video game" theme before 4e came out. But you can only blame marketing for a part of it, and I think a lot of people are only seeing what they want to see instead of what's actually there.

But if someone gives 4e a genuine chance and decides he still doesn't like it, I'm cool with that.